106 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

One of the argument against "XL engine normalization", which is to make isXL still functional despite losing 3 crits (like in an ST destruction), is the headache involved to balance STD, LFE, and XL engine when it's time for IS to get LFE. Note that an LFE weighs 75% of an equivalent STD.

An LFE only occupies 2 crit space (slots) on each ST like cXLs. This has several important implications, two of which are:

• allowing IS 'Mechs to equip AC/20 with LFE (not possible with isXL)
  
• allowing IS 'Mechs to survive an ST destruction when carrying a Gauss on that ST with LFE

Because of their unique characteristics, they will allow more possible builds to be created. Thus, I don't agree if PGI should just not release LFE because of the argument which states that it would be redundant when they normalize the two XLs.

When LFE arrives, STD would be relegated to specialized builds like the 5x AC/5 Mauler or anything else which absolutely need all of the 12 crit space on the ST. They can give STD engines durability bonus to make those specialized builds worth more.

What do you think?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

LFE wouldn't open many options outside mechs (specifically mediums) that run AC20s or dual UAC5s in the side torso, everything else will most likely still rely on structure quirks and XLs.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 April 2016 - 08:44 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 April 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

LFE wouldn't open many options outside mechs (specifically mediums) that run AC20s or dual UAC5s in the side torso, everything else will most likely still rely on structure quirks and XLs.

Yes, but as I said on the "Nightstar thread", 3x Gauss would be viable on future IS Assaults with LFE. You can do it with XL but risk premature death (loss of significant firepower for the team).

HBK-4G will be meaner (as you pointed out). Maulers can carry dual BOOM while running a bit faster. King Crabs can switch to LFE if they think that the small con is worth it. Etc.

Maybe there aren't that many but it's still significant.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hit the Deck, on 11 April 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Yes, but as I said on the "Nightstar thread", 3x Gauss would be viable on future IS Assaults with LFE. You can do it with XL but risk premature death (loss of significant firepower for the team).

3 Gauss won't be as good as other things so long as the hard cap on Gauss you can charge at once exists. It could be fun though.

Hit the Deck, on 11 April 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Maulers can carry dual BOOM while running a bit faster.

They can carry more energy backup, but they should already be running a 325 STD with 2 AC20s just because you need speed for that short range.

[Scout Derek]

well, same rules should apply to them as clan xl engines, as well as possibly upping the penalty a bit since it is IS tech, and possibly decrease some penalties as well. maybe it can still dissipate just as good as it did before losign a ST or something along those lines.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hit the Deck, on 11 April 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

Maybe there aren't that many but it's still significant.

It will be nice, but it may not do a whole lot for the meta.

[CK16]

Yea except adding these would totally invalidate IS XL engines...that is nothing something ok with new tech IMO is there should be reasons to use some of the old weapons...At least some of the others have trade offs, like tonnage, heat, range compared to existing, Light fusion engines just totally obsolete XL though and that is the large issue. Unless XL get a little added structure quirks if equipped or something.

Maybe they could make Light Fusion very prone to explosion kinda deal right? Very unstable? (Maybe BRIGHT LIGHT EXPLOSIONS? )

[Lucian Nostra]

CK16, on 11 April 2016 - 09:26 PM, said:

Yea except adding these would totally invalidate IS XL engines...that is nothing something ok with new tech IMO is there should be reasons to use some of the old weapons...At least some of the others have trade offs, like tonnage, heat, range compared to existing, Light fusion engines just totally obsolete XL though and that is the large issue. Unless XL get a little added structure quirks if equipped or something.

Maybe they could make Light Fusion very prone to explosion kinda deal right? Very unstable? (Maybe BRIGHT LIGHT EXPLOSIONS? )

how would it invalidate the IS XL engine? want more tonnage go XL, want survivability and some tonnage go LFE

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 April 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

LFE wouldn't open many options outside mechs (specifically mediums) that run AC20s or dual UAC5s in the side torso, everything else will most likely still rely on structure quirks and XLs.

I'd run the heck out of LFEs, actually, because being able to lose ST and live is huge. Especially on mech swithout good shield arms.

Yeah, my Banshee probably would not need it, but I could see others that would use it, and a fair bit of IS mechs do run STDs even with the lower firepower because of the instagib factor. Maybe not as much in comp team play, but that's what....5% of the playerbase, generously?

The issue is, that is something that needs to be added when we do a timeskip and tech advance, and not before.

But my HBK-4G would be the first in line for a 250.275 LFE, tyvm. And all my Archers.

[Khobai]

I would rather see them make IS XL survive side torso destruction and give IS STD a buff.

Rather than adding a third engine and trying to balance all three engines while also trying to balance them against clan XL.

Clans have been in the game for almost two years. PGI has already proven they cant pull off asymmetrical balance. So it makes far more sense just to make IS XL the same as CXL, then remove the IS structure quirks. Then they dont have to worry about IS vs Clan not being balanced because theyre exactly the same.

I would rather have a symmetrically balanced game than an asymmetrically unbalanced game.

Edited by Khobai, 11 April 2016 - 10:12 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

CK16, on 11 April 2016 - 09:26 PM, said:

Yea except adding these would totally invalidate IS XL engines...that is nothing something ok with new tech IMO is there should be reasons to use some of the old weapons...At least some of the others have trade offs, like tonnage, heat, range compared to existing, Light fusion engines just totally obsolete XL though and that is the large issue. Unless XL get a little added structure quirks if equipped or something.
....

I think Lights, primarily, would still use XL because they need the speed. Assaults and a number of certain 'Mechs can afford to use STD. Between those two, MechWarriors can choose between XL and LFE to put on their Mech.

Khobai, on 11 April 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

It makes far more sense just to make IS XL survive side torso destruction.

Mainly the ability to put AC/20 or some combo of weapons on the ST without resorting to STD.

[Khobai]

Quote

Mainly the ability to put AC/20 or some combo of weapons on the ST without resorting to STD.

Thats why the game needs crit splitting like tabletop allowed. Where you can split the AC20 between the torso and the arm.

That also opens up the possibility of adding weapons like long toms and arrow IV to the game.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 11 April 2016 - 10:08 PM, said:

I think Lights, primarily, would still use XL because they need the speed. Assaults and a number of certain 'Mechs can afford to use STD. Between those two, MechWarriors can choose between XL and LFE to put on their Mech.


Mainly the ability to put AC/20 or some combo of weapons on the ST without resorting to STD.

And not working mw mechanic and liter any further. I would probably stop playing for real if they made is XL into bulkier clan XL, and I bet a decent chunk of the trending bitter vets would to, since generally TT lore fluff people = a goodly chunk of your local whale population.

Fortunately I really don't foresee Russ ever doing that.

[Khobai]

Quote

I would probably stop playing for real if they made is XL into bulkier clan XL

why?

PGI is incapable of balancing IS vs clan asymmetrically. They have continually failed at it for 2 years. And they actually made balance worse with the introduction of broken quirks... because time to kill hit all time lows.

You would rather have a perpetually unbalanced game than make a minor lore concession? That makes no sense.

The only hope this game has of ever being balanced at this point is to equalize the two tech bases. Making ISXL work identically to CXL is the absolute best thing they could do for game balance. Its what they did in the other mechwarrior games and it worked fine...

Edited by Khobai, 11 April 2016 - 10:46 PM.

[TyphonCh]

Khobai, on 11 April 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

I would rather see them make IS XL survive side torso destruction and give IS STD a buff.

Rather than adding a third engine and trying to balance all three engines while also trying to balance them against clan XL.

Clans have been in the game for almost two years. PGI has already proven they cant pull off asymmetrical balance. So it makes far more sense just to make IS XL the same as CXL, then remove the IS structure quirks. Then they dont have to worry about IS vs Clan not being balanced because theyre exactly the same.

I would rather have a symmetrically balanced game than an asymmetrically unbalanced game.

There wouldn't be too much balance involved. The gameplay would balance itself.
Lights would still have the XL as engine of choice, while assaults would have STD. Every other IS mech would benefit from that extra engine selection.
And to be honest, mechs with straight up bad geometry or hitboxes and the plethora of awkward heavy-medium, heavy-assault and light-heavy mechs would make a resurgence. Kintaros, wolverines, Dragons, Centurions, Victor, etc are no longer gated by a choice of speed and firepower at the cost of a risky early death, vs survivability.
It would definitely shake up the meta. Something this game desperately needs.

Edited by Team Chevy86, 11 April 2016 - 11:01 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

It would definitely shake up the meta. Something this game desperately needs.

the game doesnt need the meta to get shook up.

what the game needs is a healthy self-correcting meta that doesnt rely on pgi to periodically shake things up by nerfing the meta in circles.

the game needs a meta with multiple playstyles that all counter eachother. instead of just everyone laser vomiting waiting for pgi to nerf lasers so the next weapon in line dominates the meta.

pgi needs to construct weapon balance with roles in mind. and those roles should deliberately counter eachother. like snipers should counter brawlers, strikers should counter snipers, brawlers should counter strikers, etc... that would insure that a mix of different weapons always gets used.

And something like that is easier to achieve if you dont also have to worry about asymmetrically balancing IS vs clan tech too.

Edited by Khobai, 11 April 2016 - 11:11 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 April 2016 - 10:19 PM, said:

And not working mw mechanic and liter any further. I would probably stop playing for real if they made is XL into bulkier clan XL, and I bet a decent chunk of the trending bitter vets would to, since generally TT lore fluff people = a goodly chunk of your local whale population.
Fortunately I really don't foresee Russ ever doing that.

I'm a whale and i rather would like to turn rules down that had their sense in TT but that are complete horrendous in MWO.
One of those things is the XL engine - together with the armor and structure distribution.

First the mistake is not PGIs alone. Bad things did already happened before - say in the 90s. When you see that legs and side torsos have the same structural points - and torso is divided by rear and front you have to ask yourself why so?
Even the legs got a lower probability to get hit when rolling dice.

THe reason is simple in the real BattleTech universe without those clowns called Clams legs were more important. A Mech without legs can't fight effective.
Well with XL fusion suddenly the side torso becomes more important.
Importance is H-CT-Legs for STD engine its H-CT-ST-LEGs for XL engines.

So Side Torsos should get a buff all over the board, make it with quirks or shove of all the underlying dice rolling mechanics

[Shadowomega1]

Well if they did want to add LFE to the game, its current setting is way too early, the current year is suppose to be 3053. LFE was first introduced in 3062, and Russ doesn't want to push the timeline forward till he hits bottom barrel of the mechs that came in 3053 and before.

@Khobia the XL mechanic was strait up disregarded in Mechwarrior 3 and 4, cause a person's aim has a far higher chance to hit side torsos then rolling the dice on a table top. If that rule was in those games, sniper mechs would have been the meta, and not just a decent build. I remember many times of having a match stick Timberwolf with a medium laser or two in the ct and still fighting.

[kapusta11]

3062 year tech. Timeline nazі do not approve.

It would also make STD engines obsolete just like cXL did in case of clan BattleMechs. Quad UAC5 Mauler would be superior to 5x AC5 Mauler equiped with STD engine.

I'm not against it but you have to account for power creep it would create.

Edited by kapusta11, 12 April 2016 - 12:19 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

Shadowomega1, on 12 April 2016 - 12:11 AM, said:

Well if they did want to add LFE to the game, its current setting is way too early, the current year is suppose to be 3053. LFE was first introduced in 3062, and Russ doesn't want to push the timeline forward till he hits bottom barrel of the mechs that came in 3053 and before.
...

kapusta11, on 12 April 2016 - 12:14 AM, said:

3062 year tech. Timeline nazі do not approve.
...

I forgot to explicitly mention it but I didn't mean to add it now. The OP was actually some kind of response to an argument saying that due to the proposed "XL engine normalization", LFE shouldn't be introduced because it would be redundant.